Guy Verhofstadt, rapporteur. – Mr President, in a few weeks’ time we will all be going to Italy for the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, often described as a big success and a big leap forward. In fact it was the outcome, dear colleagues, of nearly 10 years of negotiations and debates between the leaders of most of the Western European states, leaders who at that time, as we all know, wanted to build up a united Europe after the atrocities of the Second World War, and it started, as we know, with the historic speech by Winston Churchill at the University of Zurich in 1946. A year later, in 1947, at the Albert Hall in London, Churchill, the British bulldog, made it very clear what he wanted. He said, and I quote him: ‘I present the idea of a united Europe in which our country, Britain, will play a decisive part as a member of the European family’. Moreover, Churchill – and it’s good to remember this – unlike the Prime Minister at that time, Clement Attlee, even wanted Britain to participate in the European Steel and Coal Community, but he lost the vote in the British Parliament by 309 votes to 296, a small difference, I would say.

Indeed, dear colleagues, it is good to remember that at that time the Tories were openly pro-European. And now, more than 60 years later, we think that with these reports the European Union needs profound reform again: let’s face it, our Union is in crisis. Our European Union does not have a lot of friends at home, and certainly not abroad; the Union does not deliver any more. It is always too little, too late, and that, in my opinion, is the reason why many people and many citizens are angry in Europe. They are not against Europe. They are against a Union that does not deliver the right results, that is not capable, for example, of finding the right answers to the refugee crisis, responding to migration, or breaking down the economic stagnation after the financial crisis of 2008.

People are not against Europe. They want more Europe to face these challenges, but they are critical, it is true, of the way that the European Union works today. And that is the reason for these three reports. Brexit, Trump, Putin – I think that there are reasons enough to reform our European Union and to do it in a very profound way. That is the reason for these three reports, which you have to see together as one package. We want to do three things. First of all, we want to create a more efficient Union, for example by slimming down the Commission, ending Europe à la carte, and creating a single seat for the European Parliament. We also want to make the Union more democratic by reforming the European elections, expanding the process centring on lead candidates, and reforming and turning the European Council into what we call a council of states, alongside the European Parliament, in which we serve as the representatives of the citizens. And furthermore we want a stronger Union, better protection for civil liberties in the Union, a Union including a euro zone with a government, a fiscal capacity, a finance minister, own resources, a convergence court, and conditionality. I think that these reports give a good blueprint of what is necessary for the future and that is not a battle between the European Union on the one hand and the nation-states on the other. No, Europe needs both. In this report we are also proposing a green card, for example, for the national parliaments, along with a right of initiative for this European Parliament and for the European Council.

Once these reports are adopted, on Thursday, I hope, what is the way forward? I think that there is one way forward and that is to propose to the Commission, Mr Vice-President, and also to the European Council, that we start an interinstitutional reflection exercise, which is something that we can do better together. We have good experience with the Monti report on own resources. Why not do the same again? And that is not a luxury, dear colleagues: this report is an absolute necessity.

Frans Timmermans,First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, it is a particular honour for me to be in this House this morning to debate a topic that is very much in the hearts and minds of everyone these days: the future of our Union.

The Commission welcomes the initiatives of the European Parliament to boldly look forward. This is something that our President, Jean-Claude Juncker, has been promoting since the beginning of our mandate. We have closely followed the reports drawn up by Ms Bresso, Mr Brok and Mr Verhofstadt, and also the related reports on the eurozone budgetary capacity by Mr Böge and Ms Berès. My colleague, Valdis Dombrovskis, may also comment further on the latter report in response to this debate. All reports cover a vast range of topics, each of which could be the topic of a separate debate. I will therefore not attempt to comment on the details. My President is currently preparing a White Paper on the future of Europe in the run-up to the Rome Summit in March. We therefore appreciate very much the many interesting viewpoints and proposals set out in these proposals, which provide useful information and also inspiration.

The Bresso-Brok report rightly points to the significant, untapped potential within the existing framework, such as further reform to the institutional structure of economic and monetary union. The Verhofstadt report has a farther horizon and most of its proposals would require Treaty change. Whilst it is refreshing to see such vision, we have to acknowledge that Treaty change is not on the top of the political agenda now, in our Member States in particular. The Commission is convinced that it is our first duty to focus on issues, challenges, solutions and policies that unite us, because in these times of turmoil we will absolutely need unity to stay strong. Moreover, there is ample room in the current Treaties to improve our functioning, as the Bresso-Brok report points out, and as was also explained by the Members this morning. With regard to the Böge-Berès report, it was only adopted last night in committee, but let me say this: our common goal is a more resilient and prosperous economic and monetary union. The enhanced capacity to deal with unusually large economic shocks will have to go together with enhanced convergence among Member States’ economies and we need to break the vicious cycle between banking and sovereign debt. At the end of the day, all of this is about people: too many people in our Union have been left behind, and so the social dimension, with a European Pillar of Social Rights, must become more and more important in strengthening the economic and monetary union. Again, let me reiterate: we appreciate many of the proposals in the report and will assess them carefully for our own reflections on the future.

The European Union is a historic achievement of peace, prosperity and security on the European continent. We are bound together by history, situated together by geography, united by our common interests and befriended by choice. This, then, is the basis upon which we will develop our cooperation.

The outcome of the UK referendum creates a new situation for all of us – the EU and the United Kingdom. We will stand united and uphold the EU’s core values of promoting peace, democracy and the well-being of its people. The Bratislava Roadmap sets out the main objectives for the Union to deliver on now: migration and external borders, internal and external security, economic and social development and youth. Let me be clear: the Commission can only do so much. We can identify, analyse, recommend, warn and propose, but at the end of the day it is the responsibility of all of us, here in Strasbourg and in all of the EU capitals, to deliver. This is not, and cannot be, a pick-and-choose Union. That is why we welcome the joint declaration by the three institutions setting out a shared commitment to deliver on common priorities for this year.

Finally, it is good to look back and commemorate the achievements of those men and women who had the vision and the courage to forge the beginnings of what turned into the European Union. But after looking back, it is essential that we look forward and start working on the challenges we face, using all the tools we have, mustering all the political solidarity we can, in order to deliver the results we must. Thank you very much.

Petri Sarvamaa, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. – Mr President, I will say only a couple words on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control and those are that the discharge process should be solidified and strengthened. It is at the heart of the credibility of the whole Union. All the EU institutions should unfailingly cooperate and follow up the observations made by this Parliament.

My other point is about the European Court of Auditors. Its role needs to be further strengthened.

But I want to use this opportunity also because I see my dear friend Mr Farage here today. Nigel, I think what you are hearing today are only the first chords and first notes of a big, big symphony that is going to be heard all over Europe this year and next year. It is not only Beethoven, it is not only Bizet, it is Sibelius and it is others like them. So let us not forget this week. These are really important first steps that we are taking.

Siegfried Mureşan, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, we are holding this morning a fundamental debate about the future of the European Union. An essential component in this debate is the strengthening of the economic and monetary union. The first step that we have to take in this process is respect existing rules: respect the Stability and Growth Pact, respect the two-pack, and respect the six-pack. These are rules which we have decided on together in this House and now is the time to defend these rules, to implement them and not to question them. President Juncker rightly outlined at the beginning of his term in office the flexibility existing in the Stability and Growth Pact. It is on this basis that we have to apply it.

The second step which we have to take to strengthen the euro is use the limited financial resources which we have available to strengthen our economies, not just manage a crisis once it has occurred but help the countries to reform, to strengthen their economies, to become more competitive even before a crisis occurs. We should of course do this without increasing the burden on the taxpayer in the European Union, not by a single cent. This is why we need a fiscal capacity which is precise in scope and very effective in its implementation. If, as the report put forward by my colleagues Ms Berès and Mr Böge proposes, a finance minister is created, then the first and primary task of this finance minister will be to apply rules in a transparent, automatic and predictable way in regard to all Member States.

The report also proposes in the long term the creation of a European monetary fund which is a worthwhile endeavour and in this process, of course, conditionality is important and also the political independence of this European monetary fund. If a fiscal capacity is to be created, it should also give states from outside of the European Union the possibility to join it in terms of benefits, in terms of contributions and in terms of governance.

And to conclude, some of the steps which are put forward in these reports can be implemented in the short term, some require Treaty change and, as Vice-President Timmermans indicated, this is a longer term process. Today we are, of course, at the beginning of this longer term process of stabilising and strengthening the euro, developing it in the right direction.

Maria João Rodrigues, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the European Union must define an ambitious roadmap for the future. The European Parliament wants this to happen at the Rome Summit and, indeed, in the White Paper that is to be presented by the Commission. We should not wait for upcoming national elections. The European Union is being challenged right now by the combined effect of Putin, Trump and internal nationalistic voices, and we believe that this is the time for the European Union to assert itself as what it is already: a powerful democratic political and economic entity.

We need to translate this into a roadmap with better European solutions: better European solutions for growth with an investment strategy, a strong social pillar and completing economic and monetary union with a proper fiscal capacity; better European solutions to our security problems, certainly by advancing European defence and internal security, and also by ensuring a proper European asylum system and the proper management of migration, in cooperation with the European neighbourhood. But the European Union should also send a message to the world, saying that we, the European Union, are in favour of openness and cooperation based on a properly regulated global economy. The world is waiting for this positive message from the European Union.

Then we need to translate all this into new means of taking action. That has implications for the Community budget. We need a Community budget that is turned to the future. We believe that this offers the best way for citizens to take control of their lives, and that the best way to assure national sovereignty is to strengthen European sovereignty.

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I feel like I am attending a meeting of a religious sect here this morning. It is as if the global revolution of 2016 – Brexit, Trump, the Italian rejection of the referendum – has completely bypassed you. You cannot face up to the fact that this bandwagon is going to roll across Europe in these elections in 2017. A lot of citizens now recognise that this form of centralised government simply does not work, whether it is the miseries inflicted upon a country like Greece by the euro, the unemployment caused by bad regulation, or the feeling that none of us are as safe in our cities because of the disastrous common asylum policy.

But at the heart of it is a fundamental point. Mr Verhofstadt this morning said the people want more Europe. They do not: the people want less Europe. We see this again and again when people have referendums and they reject aspects of EU membership. But something more fundamental is going on out there. Yes, you can say they are lying and I have no doubt that many of you here, when you hear what I am about to say, will probably despise your own voters because last week the reputable group, Chatham House, published a massive survey from ten EU Member States and only 20% of people want immigration from Muslim countries to continue. Only 20% want us to continue allowing people in from Muslim countries – which means your voters have a harder-line position on this than Donald Trump, myself, or frankly any party sitting in this Parliament! That is where we are going and I simply cannot believe that you are blind to the fact that even Mrs Merkel has now made a U-turn and wants to send people back. Even Mr Schulz thinks that it is a good idea. The fact is, the European Union has no future at all in its current form and I suspect you are in for as big a shock in 2017 as you were in 2016.

György Schöpflin (PPE). – Mr President, the central focus of this debate is, or should be: why are we integrating, why these plans to integrate further, what actually is integration for?

For us in this House the answer may be self-evident, pro or contra, but for those outside I am far less sure. We assume that European integration is inherently good, on the right side of history, for those who think that history has sides – and I am not one of them. But for many millions in Europe the drive to integrate is not self-evident. Indeed, they have grave doubts about integration. This debate should also be addressing these citizens by offering a vision that speaks to the great majority, the doubters included.

The message, this ideal message, should go back to first principles. European integration becomes legitimate when it fulfils its primary function, that of conflict resolution. Anything that generates conflict weakens Europe. Secondly, the old principle of parity of esteem for all Member States, small or large, is inadequately applied. Hence the rise in Member States’ protection of their national interests. The extent of euroscepticism is precisely the critique of integration that we ignore at our peril.

Ashley Fox (ECR). – Mr President, the EU is facing many crises and this report was a great opportunity to change the direction of the EU. So who decided to give it to Guy Verhofstadt, because from that moment we knew that this report would have only one solution? Mr Verhofstadt is very consistent. Whatever the question, the answer is always the same: more Europe. So he calls for the Commission to become Europe’s government, for a new EU Finance Minister to head a new EU Treasury, and for this Parliament to have the power to levy taxes on our citizens. My Group says ‘No’.

Britain did not vote to leave the EU because there was not enough Europe; we voted to leave because the EU does too much. It has already taken too much power from the Member States and has lost touch with its citizens. This report seeks to create a United States of Europe. Instead of listening to the people, it is telling them that Brussels knows best. Instead of extending democracy, it is centralising power. So, rather than strengthening the EU, it undermines it further. With the exception of one paragraph calling for a single seat, this is a dreadful report. The EU has to change, but not like this.

Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question. – Dear colleague, OK, I understand what you mean, but do you not think that we should have to address the Commission and the Council, and together with Parliament, implement a strategic plan to regain the confidence of European Union citizens in this important pan-European organisation?

Think what would happen without the European Union in Europe! Do you not think that it might be time to increase the importance and efficiency of the European Union institutions and decrease bureaucracy; to set up important tools in order to develop this organisation – such as security and defence and other means – in order to make the European Union stronger as it plays the role on the international arena it has to play.

James Carver (EFDD), blue-card question. – Is it not the case that in fact the beauty of the continent of Europe – and I say the continent of Europe, not the political European Union – is its very diversity and the fact that we are all so different? Is it not the intention of this place to harmonise, to homogenise, to pasteurise and to make everybody the same? Is that not what is really causing this rise in nationalism across the European Union? Don’t you realise that now the Emperor here has no clothes?

Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Different, and being different and protecting our individuality, which is at the centre of human rights and European ideas of humanity. Defending that needs a stronger European Union at this moment. Only by defending our values together in a globalising world do we have a chance of keeping our diversity and the key idea of individualism. Small nation-states will not be able to defend European ways of life; this plurality based on individualism and human rights in this space in the world can only be defended together. No small island will be able to do that.

Diane James (NI). – Mr President, with this report the European Union has once again demonstrated that it is actually incapable of proper and radical reform. It had the opportunity back in 2016, before the Brexit vote, when our then UK Prime Minister came to the European Union and sought reform and came away with, quite frankly, crumbs on the table, and you now know what the result of that was.

One of my colleagues this morning has made the point about ‘more Europe’. Well, it is interesting, is it not? The European Union actually sees reform as an absolutely binary decision: either you continue with the same, or, more Europe. But both have been discredited and I just wonder when is this institution going to get real, take away the blinkers and understand that radical reform is what voters want.

Thankfully, of course, the UK will not be part of that decision, but if you are going to stop the rise of euro—scepticism across the continent, it is no good papering over the cracks, it is no good bringing a report like this forward, which does not deal with the issues that are out there, and every time responding with ‘more Europe will actually deal with globalisation’ – that is not the case.

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, my colleague is complaining that I will talk for two minutes. I think what we have to stress here is that the discussion about the future of Europe should not be only an institutional discussion. We should make it very clear to people why we are having this debate. It is not because we love institutional discussions here but because we know that the current Europe is not delivering enough. It is not providing the protection or the future which Europeans demand that we as politicians should deliver. That is why we are having this discussion.

Some people – in this room and certainly outside it – claim that going back to basics will deliver, but that is the biggest nonsense ever. Just to mention one example, regarding tax evasion, something that our citizens are concerned about every day is seeing multinationals paying too little tax. Why is that? Because Europe has no competence on this at all. It is a national competence and the national Member States are competing downwards, making sure that, in the end, it will be the people, rather than companies, who pay taxes. That is precisely why ‘back to basics’ will not do.

That goes also for the euro. If you look at the eurozone, some people still think that, as long as we follow the Stability and Growth Pact, it will be fine. Well, Ireland and Spain were following the Stability and Growth Pact before the euro crisis. They were doing perfectly well and we still had problems. We had to take emergency measures without democratic control. We have a European Stability Mechanism (ESM), in which it is very difficult to control where the money goes. We have a European Central Bank being forced to step in because politicians are not willing to do their job, and it is a bit cheap to now criticise the ECB for that.

Therefore, I am very happy that this Parliament is supporting a budgetary capacity, because people need it. We need it in order for the euro to deliver. I would like to thank the rapporteurs for that strong political statement. I am happy that on Thursday we will give that support as a parliament. However, very importantly, this discussion needs to be held in the national parliaments afterwards, because we will win support only if the national parliaments too, rather than just the European Parliament, are looking for these kinds of solution.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL), blue-card question. – Mr Speaker, (first few words inaudible) there are honourable goals when it comes to tax avoidance and tax evasion. Speaking as the decent person that I hope I am, and as someone who comes from Ireland, that would have to be a goal. But as for the idea that the European Union would do something about it if we had different structures: given that the head of the Commission is Jean-Claude Juncker, who is the godfather of tax avoidance, how do you think it would be any different if he gave Europe control over this? Will we not get another godfather who would rise to the top? These people have a way of rising to the top. It isn’t just cream: scum also rises.

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Honourable colleague, when we are discussing the future of Europe, you should not look only at the current President of the Commission. What we are doing and putting in place here are solutions for the future and I hope that we do that beyond 2019. We have just heard that the Commission President will serve only one term, but we are building solutions here for after 2019.

The alternative is what we have now: 28 vetoes on any taxation decision. Your lovely country, Ireland, will block any change because they want to be the lowest, and others want to go to that level as well. This race to the bottom must stop, and you can stop it only if you take away the 28 vetoes which are a recipe for no change at all.

Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – Mr President, some months ago a book entitled ‘The Euro and the Battle of Ideas’ was published. After reading the book, and at the same time being part of the negotiations on the report by Ms Berès and Mr Böge, I came to a very disturbing conclusion. We have very different administrative cultures in this European Union and this boils down to the necessity, according to one side, of living according to the rules, and for the other side of starting to renegotiate the rules immediately after a deal.

This process ends with a compromise which does not actually satisfy anybody in this process. We create a very thin line no one is able to follow; we also create thereby illusions about our ability to solve the problem. We need a framework for discussion and we need it more dearly today than ever before and therefore I sincerely hope that these own-initiative reports and the white book President Juncker will publish will produce a framework according to which we can solve the real problems.

Pavel Telička (ALDE). – Mr President, the word ‘crisis’ has been floating about here the whole morning. Somehow I am tempted to say that I do not see the EU in a crisis. In order to see a crisis I would look all around the European Union and I think that many around the European Union would like to have the crisis that we say we have.

What I do see is the European Union being weak. It has weaknesses, it is unable to take up the challenges it has, it is unable to be quick enough in its solutions. Quite often we are tackling issues for which the EU does not have competence. Quite often we are looking at issues which we could leave to national competence.

What is important is that we have an impetus and, for me, these three reports – while I admit that vis-à-vis some of them there would be provisions I would not agree with or could have difficulties with – are an impetus for real debate, a debate that we need in order to launch real reform of the European Union and be able to take up the challenges and deliver on issues on which our public expects us to deliver.

(The speaker declined to take a blue-card question from Mr Woolfe)

Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I must say that I feel really proud that, after two years of work, we have reached this day when a very clear message on the future of the European Union will come out from this House. When we look at the history of the European Union, we can clearly see that it has always grown through reforming itself but today reforms must signify urgency, pragmatism, but also vision and ambition.

It is true that a lot can, and must, be done at the national level, but it is essential to understand that we are strong because we have agreed upon, and jointly created, a system of European institutions: institutions which protect us against the risk of abandoning the core shared values that hold us together, institutions which are guardians of the interdependence created over decades of integration, and also institutions which have to progress and deliver efficiently.

The convergence machinery must certainly gather pace. Country-specific situations must be taken care of, but not at the expense of undermining the European capacity to act, of fragmentation, of discarding the Community method of integration. A new approach to the working method of the Union should respond to the growing demand for a more accountable, transparent and participatory decision-making system. We should continuously seek improvements to the way the European institutions work, generously exploiting the potential offered by new technologies.

Most of us agree that many badly-needed reforms can be introduced within the existing Treaty framework and we should use this potential fully, but it is our duty to look seriously into those areas where, without Treaty change, Europe’s capacity to respond to people’s legitimate fears, needs and ambitions will remain limited. We cannot afford this.

Brian Hayes (PPE). – Mr President, the message from the debate this morning, despite the differences that remain on these reports, must be loud and clear: the European Union, as 27 Member States, remains united, and remains united after the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. A clear commitment exists across the 27 Member States to make Europe work and to deliver for our citizens.

And the good news? Despite nearly a decade of crisis and internal tension, Europe is finally growing again and the eurozone especially is growing again. Last year there was growth of 1.8%, greater than the level of growth in the United States of America for the first time in a decade; three million jobs were created over the course of the last 12 months in the eurozone, a job-creation rate more than 2% higher than in the United States of America. So, if anything, the economic data is showing that Europe and the eurozone have turned a corner and look like a much more stable economic bloc than either the United Kingdom or the United States of America.

I believe that Europeans want an integrated single market. I believe they want solid public finances and good-quality jobs with prospects. They want, essentially, political and economic certainty. The great majority of EU citizens do not want a federal Europe. They want a Europe that works for them and their families. There are many difficult issues in these reports. I personally am against a finance ministry and a treasury. I am against tax harmonisation, as people know, but, in short, if we want Europe to work now, today and tomorrow, we have got to do the job that we set out to do over a decade ago. That is the issue now, rather than a ...

Jakob von Weizsäcker (S&D). – Mr President, when we created our common currency 25 years ago with the Treaty of Maastricht, we created something like a shiny new car, rather fast and comfortable. We knew full well that it lacked certain traditional safety features, such as a crumple zone in the form of exchange rates, but we just hoped that the driving instructions which came with the car – especially the Stability and Growth Pact – would induce everybody to drive safely, especially after a driving test based on the so-called convergence criteria.

So we were happily speeding along for a decade until we realised that we had two problems: not everybody was driving as carefully as they should, and, more importantly, not every accident is due to reckless driving, as the financial crisis has shown. That is why we need active safety features such as air bags; that is why we need roadside assistance; that is why we need an ambulance for people who have got hurt.

The Berès/Böge report on fiscal capacity gives a good indication of how such features can be created within our common currency. It also acknowledges that some of these features could induce moral hazard, such as not putting on your seatbelt or driving recklessly. In doing so, the Berès/Böge report is an example of a good Franco-German compromise by convinced Europeans. With this report we are moving our Union forward in the spirit of solidarity and responsibility. I very much hope that the Commission’s White Paper will be similarly clear and forward-looking, ahead of the Rome Summit, national elections in a number of key Member States, and Brexit.

Steven Woolfe (NI), blue-card question. – Mr Ujhelyi, you said that we should look to history and read our history books, but the papers that we are discussing today talk about a common army, a common security system, a common banking system and common taxation. All of these were done by the communists, by the Holy Roman Empire, by the Egyptians, and by any form of dictatorship trying to aggrandise the people and control the people.

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Mr President, some Members in this Chamber think that more Europe, more federalism is a solution. I think this is absolutely wrong. The political union being peddled would be a total disaster. More power to the EU institutions simply will not substitute for the lack of credibility the EU is suffering today.

We reject the rise of extremism in our countries. We must fight against it, yes. Today you ask for more sovereignty from people but you have not given the slightest reflection to why the EU is in crisis. My question is: what have we learned from Brexit just recently? What have we learned? I do not see any reflection here. This is what people despise. This is what creates anger and opposition. This is feeding extremist movements in Europe more and more. So let us emphasise the role of national parliaments over the much publicised power of the EU. Moreover consider the waste of money that is more and more Europe.

Europe needs reform, but it starts by respecting national states and their citizens. Furthermore, we must honour the founding fathers of this House and of the EU by respecting the God-given values they treasured.

Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I have been in the room for almost three hours, perhaps longer than anyone else and certainly longer than any of the Commissioners.

Let me tell you that my party is not against Europe. However, we support a better Europe. There are millions of unemployed people out there and, if they have followed our discussion, they unfortunately now know that they will remain unemployed for longer.

Secondly, only a few in this room referred to the eurozone, which in my opinion is one of the root causes of the tragic situation we are facing today. I mean that its structure and the way it was created constitute one of the reasons for the problems so many people are trying to resist.

Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Verhofstadt for these very well calibrated proposals which, in writing, look much better than the over-cautious rhetoric about the United States of Europe. The report is very timely yet, on the other hand, we would be better off if we had adopted it before the 2014 elections so that European citizens could have given us, or not given us, a mandate to accomplish those ideas. That is why I would like to propose that you do not pin your hope so much on the possible convention but, rather, keep it simple.

We, the elected representatives of the people, must be able to debate, vote and adopt changes to the Treaties. I would like to give all my support to today’s rapporteurs if they will go out and truly defend the prerogatives and the full duties of this European Parliament. The selfish slogans à la ‘Make this or that country great’ – at the cost of the other countries – could easily be defeated under the motto: ‘Make this Parliament great again’. Thank you for making an attempt.

Valdis Dombrovskis,Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for today’s very interesting debate. In conclusion I will address the issue of budgetary capacity for the euro area, on which the report by Ms Berès and Mr Böge aims to put forward a consensual position of the European Parliament. We need to see it in the wider context of the work on completing economic and monetary union.

The Five Presidents’ Report of June 2015 set out how to go about this. We have already seen progress on the four unions as outlined in the report’s first phase: an economic union focusing on convergence, prosperity and social cohesion; an integrated financial union to finance companies and households better and to ensure financial stability; a closer fiscal union for sound and integrated fiscal policies; and a political union to safeguard democratic accountability and strengthen legitimacy where needed. Further deepening of EMU should be built on the existing instruments, notably the European Semester, putting more flesh on its bones and strengthening its credibility and effectiveness.

The idea of the convergence code, creating a more binding framework for economic policy coordination around key economic competitiveness and social targets, would go in that direction. Also any further refinement of our economic and monetary union must fully respect the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. Only then will we have the stability and credibility we need for more ambitious designs.

At the same time, the Five Presidents’ Report also noted that, in the medium to long term, completing the economic and monetary union may require further institutional evolution and new tools. The existing instruments, the European Stability Mechanism, and previously European Financial Stability Facility, and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism have been successful in overcoming the most difficult part of the crisis. The financial system has been reinforced too through the establishment of the banking union.

Looking to the future the Five Presidents’ Report proposes a system of public risk sharing to be enhanced through a fiscal stabilisation mechanism for the euro area as a whole. Its aim would be to deal with major shocks, when national stabilisation systems prove insufficient even if the country hit by the problems has been following all the rules. The main ideas being discussed are all around boosting investment and supporting unemployment benefits, possibly via a reinsurance scheme. Such mechanisms could and should be set up in a way that does not lead to permanent transfers among countries or undermine incentives for sound policy-making at national level.

I understand that these are the sort of questions that were at the heart of the debate you had in drawing up the report by Ms Berès and Mr Böge. As the report was adopted in committee only last night, we are not in a position today to give you a point by point, or line by line, commentary. But we will study the recommendations Parliament adopts this week very closely.

Our common goal is a more resilient and prosperous economic and monetary union. As Frans Timmermans said, the social dimension also runs throughout efforts to complete the EMU. It is clear that the institutional, political and legal challenges are substantial but it is vital that we overcome them. The Commission’s White Paper on the future of Europe will present a wider vision for the future of Europe. It will take into account the very valuable suggestions in the three important reports before us today, which I know are the outcome of long hours of negotiation. In the weeks and months to come we will continue to work closely with Parliament and the Council in this area. There are no easy solutions, no simple answers to such complex issues. Responsibility and solidarity must always go hand in hand, and only when we reconcile our approaches can we all move forward. Today’s debate, I believe, is certainly a step in the right direction.

Guy Verhofstadt, rapporteur. – Mr President, I will be very brief. First of all, I think that the Commission could react. Fiscal capacity for the euro area has been on the table for two years now and then the Commission comes and says that they have to examine it. But that is another point.

I have heard three fundamental criticisms. The first is that this is too institutional, then that you are creating more – and a bigger – Europe and people do not want that, and that it is too visionary. Those are the three criticisms that I have heard this morning.

Firstly, on institutions, it is not the case that we produce a report on institutions because we like institutions and want to create them. No, we do this because they are the only way to tackle the problems we are facing today. We have been talking about, for example, cleaning up the banks. You need funds to clean up these banks at the European level. On refugee flows, you need a border and coast guard to tackle that problem. In the future, on terrorist threats, you will need an investigation and intelligence capacity at European level. So we are pleading for a number of institutional reforms, not because we like institutions, but because this is the only way to tackle at a European level the challenges we are facing today.

The second thing is that this is only a bigger Europe. No, in the report it is about a smaller Commission, and less regulation but more policies – that is what we need – and also social policies and tax policies. And then, finally, it is too visionary. Well I think that in Europe we need a vision and a project again. It is only when we show the way forward and a vision for the future, rather than just concentrating on day-to-day politics, that people and citizens can again be converted to the new European ideals.

For the rest, I am very encouraged that a big majority of the House has supported the report instead of the extremes on the left and the right.

Eva Maydell (PPE), in writing. – This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaties. Back then, the founding fathers had a vision for a united Europe and they believed in it with all their being. Today, Europe faces more challenges than ever before. This is why it is very important to remember the legacy of Rome and shape our new vision for the European Union. This discussion should not only be in the corridors of the EU Institutions; we need to get on the ground and listen to the people – the majority of them wants European-wide solutions for the challenges we face nationally.

The resolutions for the future of Europe are a good base to start this discussion, yet they outline solutions only to the problems we have today. We have to be visionaries and define what the problems of the future are, then provide a safety net.

Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. – While having every respect for the competence and dedication of the rapporteurs, I consider the exercise that they undertook to define the parameters of a budgetary capacity for the eurozone as technically interesting but politically premature. The fundamental problem facing the eurozone is not its design, though this needs to be considered; it is the lack of a political will to accept that the growing divergences within the eurozone have to be first of all recognised and corrected through a new political agreement. Divergences have resulted, and are growing, due to a too fast and blinkered development of the eurozone project, on the back of the EU’s soft power and in disregard of the impact of globalisation. Eurozone rules automatically advantage the stronger members to the detriment of the weaker. Such a situation can only be corrected though political action, not through the addition of new rules to the system. Though technically insightful, the budgetary capacity additions being proposed will indeed serve to enhance divergences, not reduce them, in the absence of a new political agreement. Unfortunately, the current exercise amounts to one in which the cart is being put before the horse. I cannot support it.

Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – After 60 years since the signature of the Treaty of Rome, after many remarkable accomplishments often achieved in times of economic and political difficulty, but also after a recent history of strong adversities, including the first decision of a Member State electorate to leave the EU – the time is indeed ripe to clarify what our Union is, what purposes it serves and how it should use its tools to better serve those purposes.

Avoiding the traps of easy solutions professed by radicals on right and left, and building on the strength of our open economy and multi-level democracy, we must fix what is not working, and push forward for stronger and bolder policies and swifter decision-making processes. The Union is the best vehicle our continent has devised in order to be able to shape our economic, social and environmental, and security situation in the world, but it is not perfect: it can and it should be improved.